|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
8.31.2005
E&P "On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: 'It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us. | 8.30.2005
Mrs. Sheehan’s song is, I think, already fading in the charts, and “I ain’t no hollaback girl” is too ripe a metaphor to last much beyond Labor Day. Before it goes the way of all metaphors, let’s give it a cheer. On Sunday the New York Times gave an advanced peak at a forthcoming article in The Georgetown Law Journal that is yet another demonstration that higher education has become host to an extraordinary uniformity of political opinion. In this case, the campaign contributions over 11 years of professors at the top 21 law schools were reviewed. Of those who professors contributed anything, 89 percent at Duke gave to Democrats; 90 percent at Columbia; 91 percent at Harvard; topping out at 94 percent at Stanford. ooooohhh... a multiple choice question!! (Choose any and all that apply) Q) the overwhelming majority of professors at 21 top law schools gave to democrats because: a) educated people find anti-intellectual conservatives and republicans to be very very silly? b) in order to become professors at a top law school you have a liberal lobotomy? c) law is a liberal concept, therefore, people who study it find liberalism appealing? d) Leftist law faculties hire only the like-minded? e) this shit's bananas? It goes without saying that most anything published at National Review is mostly bullshit. But what I can't seem to understand is this utter lack of understanding on the part of conservatives when it comes to seeing the direct connection between modern education and liberalism. "Why are so many people in the academic world so liberal?" they ask with absolute honesty. As if the answer isn't obvious to anyone who has read a history book. Conservatism in academia would be the death of free inquiry. Or to put it in a way that conservatives can understand: Who needs learnin' when you have the TRUTH? | Just Check the ID: "The idea, so contentious in other contexts, actually rings a loud bell in sports. Athletes often talk of feeling an absolute fulfillment of purpose, of something powerful moving through them or in them that is not just the result of training. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, a neuroscientist and research professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, is a believer in ID, or as he prefers to call it, 'intrinsic intelligence.' Schwartz wants to launch a study of NASCAR drivers, to better understand their extraordinary focus. He finds Darwinism, as it applies to a high-performance athlete such as Tony Stewart, to be problematic. To claim that Stewart's mental state as he handles a high-speed car 'is a result of nothing more than random processes coming together in a machine-like way is not a coherent explanation,' Schwartz said." The uncanny ability to turn left at high speeds for hours on end proves the intelligence of human design? Sure, why not? If we're going to throw out quality control, why not go all the way? Never mind all the hard work and engineering that goes into building a car, planning a race strategy, training a pit crew and tweaking an engine. (via eschaton) | GOD SENDS GIANT SWIRLING FETUS OF DEATH TO KILL THOUSANDS, THWARTED BY EVIL SCIENTISTS YET AGAIN! There are your scientific explanations, and then there are your god-inspired (ID) explanations, such as these from Columbia Christians for Life. Baby-murder state # 1 - California (125 abortion centers) - land of earthquakes, forest fires, and mudslides After all, what further proof do we need than to notice that hurricane Katrina sort-kinda looks like a fetus to people obsessed with unborn babies? There are your geologic explanation to explain the earthquakes and mudslides in California, and then there are your meteorological explanations for the hurricanes on the gulf coast, but they're not nearly as compelling as imagining that god sends huge giant fetuses to kill thousands of innocent people. (once again scientists predicted the storm and the possible dangers, and people were warned ahead of time, unlike that disastrous tsunami in Asia a few months back.) As to why the 9-11 terrorists decided to attack a heavily populated city with massive symbols of America's power is a complete mystery isn't it? They must have been angry about the abortion clinics? Hey, makes about as much sense as correlating global warming to the decline in pirate population. But hey, scientific reasoning has never been a strong suit amongst the fundies. Because, if they could reason they wouldn't be fundies. Its like a trademark. (via eve's apple, via pandagon) | 8.27.2005
2005 Okie Blog Awards I'm up Best Political Blog. I was hoping for Best Inspirational Blog. What? You don't think my politics are inspirational? | Top News | Reuters.co.ca: "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Secular Iraqis said on Wednesday a proposed new constitution left no room for doubt about the Islamist path the country was heading down two years after a U.S.-led invasion was supposed to produce greater freedoms. Great, maybe we should let Pat Robertson have a shot at writing our constitution? "We had hoped for a secular constitution that would separate religion from state," said Mirza Dinnayi, leader of the Yazidi sect viewed by Islamists now running Iraq as devil worshippers. Here we call them liberals. Don't they know its "freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion"? The irony of course, is that our own homegrown fundies will see this as further reason to turn America into Jesusland -- to protect us. So what's our progress report as we "march toward freedom in the middle east"? Well, we had a fairly secular Iraq with little to no ties with Islamic terrorists and an Iran that was inching ever so slowly towards reform. Now? A shiny new constitution in Iraq enshrining religious law and an Iran that has tightened its grip on reformers and is looking to restart its nuclear program. So what went wrong -- besides the 2000 election when we elected a moron to lead the most militarized nation in the history of humankind? After that? A fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to democracy. Its more than just writing up a constitution and telling people to go vote. Its an idea that has to mean something to people. At its heart is a fundamental desire for self determination. You have to want to take control of your own life. This idea runs counter to various movements that want you to concede control to them, be it a religion, the state (monarchies, communism, etc) or something else entirely. These obstacles have to be overcome. In Europe, the Enlightenment tore down many of the existing power structures that were keeping people from realizing greater freedom. America, influenced greatly by many enlightenment thinkers was a consequence of that revolution in thought. Here was a nation that declared itself free from all things except its own willingness to decide its own fate. No kings, No popes, No single authority. Sometimes, I am amazed that America came into existence in the midst of a cultural bubble. Since then, the power gained from the enlightenment has been eroded away. Today we take it for granted that people will discover more about the nature of the world in which we live. We savor the technology that science brings us but not the process by which science operates. Then, explaining the mysteries of nature gave people an aura of authority. Now, people willingly ignore scientists and great social thinkers in preference to loony throwbacks like Pat Robertson who claims his authority from a selective reading of the Bible. I worry that we are on a path to reject all that people fought so hard to achieve. | 8.24.2005
Apparently Pat Robertson is broadcasted on something called ABC Family. But why do they refer to religious events/programming/literature as "family"? You have these people that get all upset that there are bars or strip clubs next to schools but few people question where we put churches. Most people consider churches to be relatively harmless. I disagree. Some religious groups claiming to be Christian are little more than loony cults with Bibles and crosses. It seems we're willing to give anyone a pass as long as they cloak themselves in the name of Christianity. This, even though some of these new mega-churches seem like nothing more than religious based business models. Any opportunist can bank on the immunity offered by calling themselves Christian. There's no quality control. I could just as easily call myself a Christian blog, slap a few Bible quotes at the top of the page and other Christians would feel like they have to give me deference. I consider people like Pat Robertson to be very dangerous. He promotes intolerance and hatred. Why is that called "Family"? Why would parents want to expose their kids to this eye-squinching maniac? | 8.23.2005
New colors. If it offends you in some way, let me know. I'll probably get tired of it in a few months anyways... | 8.21.2005
meeciteewurker has given me a good place to start a discussion I've been wanting to have for a while. heh. Yeah, while not a um... whole-hearted Christian myself, I find it hard to compare the two religions. Sure Christians had the "crusades", but good grief that was a while back. Very valid questions. Are Muslims any more prone to violence than Christians, and if so why? I take the view that religion is essentially social programming, and not very effective even at that. In most cases the actual teachings of the religion become secondary to the promotion of the institution, and by extension, that tribe of people. Take for instance some very specific instructions from Jesus himself. 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" Seems like some pretty straightforward instructions if you ask me. Or take this passage from the Quran: You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does God command you, that you may learn wisdom. Again.. seems pretty clear. But people keep killing each other. So I generally reject the idea that somehow religion is some kind of force for good in the world. If we could only get everyone to follow (insert religion here) then everything would be ok? Sure. Take a look at this picture of Hitler praying. Or this one, of priests giving the Nazi salute. But, I hear you saying, these people were not following the true meaning of the religion When does anyone? There's a good reason that the media never refers to Christian terrorists, because we don't view our own institutional violence as terrorism. Most killers see a justification for their actions. Nobody sees their own aggression as wrong. The fact that the United States is the leading possessor of weapons designed to kill massive quantities of people never seems to disturb anyone. The fact that the United States supplies weapons to many other countries is underreported simply because its not relevant. We instigated aggression against Iraq for our own purposes without sufficient proof of threat. I tend to think of the war in Iraq as a proxy war for the fundamentalists here in America. Much of the support for the war comes from the religious right who support Bush's agenda which they perceive as their own. The state has taken up arms for their cause. Hence they don't really feel compelled to form up nasty little militias and start strapping bombs to their chests. Are today's American Christians violent? Yes, some are. But they rarely have to resort to such crude methods of terrorism; especially since they have ready access to the largest arsenal in the world. Extremists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have power in this society. I have very little qualms in stating that they are the counterparts to the jihadis leading the holy war for Islam. Just today, in reference to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Pat Robertson called for blood: (follow the link to watch the video) We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with. .. and people still listen to this yahoo? People fight hardest when they're backed into a corner, and right now the Muslim world has got its back to the wall in many regards. In terms of weaponry and economic bargaining chips, they have very few. Even Pakistan, a majority Muslim country with nuclear weapons cooperates with the United States. (How anyone can argue with a straight face that violence is not an effective tool of foreign policy in light of how we use our own military to influence other countries, is beyond me!) I take the general view that people are the same no matter where they are born. We're hard-wired in many of the same ways. Religion, in and of itself does little to promote or stop violence. I do think that religious institutions attract people that are prone to one dimensional points of view. Most religions promote the idea that its members are exceptional for their relationship with the divine. Such ideas, in the hands of people prone to violence, acts as an easy justification for killing. Of course nothing warms my heart more than to see someone equate their own prejudices with God's will. The history of our own country, and that of mostly Christian Europe has been bloody and violent. Despite efforts to pretend that such acts of violence like the holocaust, slavery and the mass killings of our own native population didn't really happen, or that they were committed by people other than Christians, the truth is that violence works, and we have used it in the past and the present. Its a tiny pedestal that we put our own peaceful ways on. We've institutionalized violence in our culture with overt militarism. | Stories in America great site. Rose Aguilar is traveling around having conversations with americans. Recently she has come through Oklahoma. My favorite quote, from a housekeeper at Quiktrip. So you believe we're acting as peacemakers in Iraq? Where would she get such an idea? Where do you get your information about the war? She gets her information about the invasion of Iraq from the Bible? You mean believe in the Bible? | 8.19.2005
Larry Kudlow: The silence of the Bush Boom: "Why President Bush seemingly gets no credit for the strong economy is one of the enduring political mysteries of our time." Ask stupid questions -- get your own stupid answers. Share prices have recovered about 70 percent in recent years, with a number of widely tracked indexes, like the NYSE and the S&P small- and mid-cap indexes, now trading at all-time highs. The economy itself is growing at about 4 percent per annum since the tax cuts, with business investment leading the surge. I don't get it... wealth is flowing into the stock market but people are still not convinced that the economy is going great guns?? Its a bit like swimming around in a lake and wondering why the people down below the damn are complaining about not having enough water. If generating great gains for the stock market were the only indicator of economical health this question might make more sense. But its only one thing to look at, and in my humble opinion, a poor one at that; especially in light of the rising costs of just about everything around us. Unless you've got a considerable sum working for you in the market you might actually start to feel like its become more costly to do the same things that you always did before. What with gas going up, prescription drugs costing an arm and a leg and other various costs being passed on to the consumer? Another possible sub-rosa problem plaguing the administration is the growing public distaste for wasteful federal spending. But how will Bush reward his cronies and fuel profits on the backs of the American taxpayers?! The Bush economic policy, a two pronged approach of reduced taxes on the wealthy and increased spending on corporate pork, has done wonders to fatten the wallets of a small group of connected people. But its all pouring water into the lake. I measured the lake today, and there's plenty of water!" At this point I'm no longer surprised to see "educated" opinionmakers completely ignore the realities of working people. We should just be thankful because there are "more jobs", or elated that company profits are soaring as our paychecks stay the same. Aren't we all getting richer -- in a collective sense? It feels more like redistribution if you ask me. | 8.17.2005
Look, I don't think the president is out of bounds by not visiting Cindy Sheehan. By practical concerns he can't give everyone who is willing to make a public spectacle what they want. But on the other hand I think she has every right to express her opinion. Public protest is part of American culture no matter what people seem to think. We have a right (for the time being) of gathering around and expressing our displeasure with the government. The government has the right to ignore us and stick its middle finger out at us. That's fair. What isn't fair is the personal attacks on Sheehan. She's just a person with a point of view. And yes, people are using her as a cause. It happens on the right and the left with interest groups flocking to the cameras. Or do we forget the spectacle that was the Terri Schaivo episode? As for Bush taking a vacation and not wanting to worry his pretty little head over matters of life and death, I'm not all that surprised. Bush is an elite, and he only pretends to care about the rabble. He lives in a completely different reality than most people; one with a different set of priorities. He feels entitled to enjoy his priviledge, reap the benefits of his station and make decisions that could send people off to die for his (and his friends) financial interests. Why we keep electing people that care so little about the majority of normal people in this country is a bit of a mystery to me. Well, not really. The doorway to politics is guarded by the money. We never even get to hear the voice of regular people anymore. Its all such a narrow range of debate. You have to have the right opinions to even consider a career in politics these days. Billions are spent each year making sure that what we think and what we believe is as natural as breathing air. | 8.15.2005
Least Loved Bedtime Stories v. 2.0 ? Cindy Sheehan But at the very least bitches like this Sheehan witch should be shunned, with no pauses at “Aw, she’s crying” corner either. So much hate on the right these days, as they play Whack-a-Mole with anyone that happens to disagree with the president and his war of choice, even as most people are waking up to the reality of what has happened. What we are seeing is the downward trend in an arc of ideaology whose sole propulsion was victimhood. They continue to blame The All Powerful Left (who can brainwash grieving mothers with a flick of its wand!) and blame the people who were smart enough to see through the bullshit. Seriously, take a look at yourselves. | 8.14.2005
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq: "The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say." um, ok. So we've come to this point? Where we strip back much of the false pretenses that have dominated the discussion so far? Now we'll start to talk about the realistic goals that we still hope to achieve. Gone will be all talk about women's rights, or a free market economy, or freedom in the middle east. Grownups will say: Some concessions will have to be made in response to our "unrealistic expectations"? So now, as Iran and North Korea are inching closer to being nuclear players, we no longer hear much talk about how in the post 9-11 world we have to prevent rogue states from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and now, as we start to see the growth of an Islamic state in Iraq we'll hear less and less talk about how we are liberating a people and bringing them freedom and democracy... ...and we'll accept, with a sigh, and with total obedience from the principled left and right that the best of all possible solutions will be to shoot for more realistic goals... ...a weakened government that concedes to the demands of the west while allowing the local theocrats to play god with the little people... ...we'll still get our military bases built right in the middle of a strategic area to perform "constabulary" duties (the PNAC word for it, not mine) and to put a little fear into the likes of Syria and Iran should they ever have designs to threaten our good friends in the region... ... oh, and is that some sorely needed oil under the ground around here? What a happy coincidence! Its a good thing the Iraqi government realizes the importance of its oil wealth in rebuilding after the mess we've made of their country. And as a gesture of good faith, we'll buy as much as they need to sell. The publicly stated goals were never the privately stated goals. We were sold a set of false expectations and we're now being told that we were duped. Of course I don't expect the wingnuts to ever admit that they were fooled. Nope, they'll just preach the lie that we fell short of our well intentioned lofty goals. Really, when I borrowed your car without asking, it was to go put gas in it. It was just by some bizarre set of bad circumstances that I ended up in Vegas, selling your car for gambling money. I meant well, I'm the victim here! | 8.12.2005
Disney Executive's Severance Ruled Legal - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK, Aug. 9 -- Hollywood super-agent Michael S. Ovitz spent 14 disastrous months as the No. 2 executive at Walt Disney Co., taking $140 million in severance when he was forced out, or $10 million for each month on the job. On Tuesday, a Delaware judge ruled that the severance package, while 'breathtaking,' was perfectly legal and that directors did not violate their duty to protect shareholders when they approved it." or take for example this executive for Delta (as mentioned by Backslider's Wine): RONALD ALLEN'S 'GOLDEN PARACHUTE'  Delta CEO Gerald Grinstein with U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Rep. Tom Price and U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland as they push for a bill that would allow Delta to have an extra 12 to 15 years to make up the deficit to their pension plan. Excess executive pay is a result of one type of thinking; "We deserve this money because we are better than you." The other day I made on offhand comment to a coworker, that being rich changes the way you think. After thinking about how I would go about justifying that remark, I realized, I should have said that being rich CAN change the way you think. More specifically, it makes you start believing that you are somehow better than other people. You must be, people listen to you, stores and restaurants go out of their way to cater to your needs and people pay attention to you even if you're saying the most ludicrous things. Living a life of excess doesn't feel so bad as long as the people around you are doing so as well. Its all relative. But take that two story house with two and a half baths, a library, den and pool house and plop it down into a shanty town full of people living elbow to elbow and it starts to feel selfish and unneccesary. Because it is. Human beings don't need much to survive. That's obvious when you look at the squalid conditions that fellow human beings endure on this earth. At some point, as you construct a rationale for the material excess that surrounds you, you must start to believe that you deserve to have more than others. Thus, the idea of class is born. .. and I'm not talking about people who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs either. I'm talking about people like our dear leader, and these executives that feel they deserve the equivalent of 30 respectable working class incomes plus perks for simply being them. I consider that immoral. These days we've demoted greed as a sin, and focused all our attention on things like sex. Its not that we should restrict what salaries companies pay, but we should cry foul when we see another person being a greedy motherfucker. And that's why I have to laught at people when they refer to Our Deal Leader as being moral. That GM took a huge wad of cash for simply sitting there and looking pretty. In early January, Bush and his baseball partners hit a home run, selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush himself hit a grand slam. For his 1.8 percent share of the club -- which cost him $605,000 -- the Governor gets paid between $10 and $14 million. That is a return of up to twenty-three times his original investment -- in less than nine years. Why? Because the people involved needed Bush's political connections. The taxpayers paid for the stadium that Bush and his cohorts sold for a neat and tidy profit. Tidy, except for the fact that they seized the land to do it. As member of the ruling class Bush felt entitled to money that he did not earn, all the while preaching about the evils of government dependency. repeat after me... Bush's personal wealth = taxpayer money. Its all related, CEO's walk off with huge paychecks while workers are left fretting about the pensions they were promised, politicians and well connected businessmen walk away with huge government financed riches while taxpayers wonder why we can't afford the programs we want. | 8.09.2005
dustbury.com: Ghouls gone wild Apparently mentioning why a person died prematurely is in poor taste. Peter Jennings died of lung cancer... why? (shrugs) I give people of a certain generation a pass. At one time it was a matter of debate whether smoking caused people to die of lung cancer. That time is long past. People who start smoking now can't claim any ignorance. I think many younger people who smoke do so with the intention of quitting after a few years. I'm used to the boneheaded defensiveness of smokers. I'm not about to try to talk people out of smoking, but I can understand why people become militant about making sure that people know the dangers of lighting up. After all, watching a person (or two, or three) die prematurely due to smoking-related cancer has a weird effect on people. | 8.07.2005
John Vanderslice October 4, Denver, CO Hi-Dive w/ The Double Okkervil River Tuesday, November 1, 2005 w/ Minus Story 9pm Doors | $10 in advance $10 day of show| All Ages Hard Tickets GuestroomRecords Tickets on Sale September 8, 2005 (just a note to myself) | 8.05.2005
Ben Shapiro: What I learned in Oklahoma City In the running for the "Silliest Thing I Have Ever Read" contest should I ever have one. I saw this link to Ben Shapiro's little homage to us "country folks" at Okiedoke (Thanks Mike!) and I just had to take a few minutes to make fun of it. Because, it is, after all, Townhall.com, home of the looniest of loonies! Let's start. I'm a city boy, born and bred. I've lived in Los Angeles and Cambridge, Mass. Even though my parents are native Midwesterners (Chicago), the closest I've ever come to country living is vacationing in Wisconsin. So when I was invited by the people at Supertalk 930 WKY in Oklahoma City to guest host on one of their afternoon radio programs, I was very excited. So excited that you have decided to come live in Oklahoma City? How nice, What's that, you're too busy going to Harvard Law School? Well shucks, what are you too good for TU Law School? Notice of course, that many of these right wingers want us to lead the revolution but so very few of them want to come down here and live among us. Its all well and good for them all to sit in their Washinton D.C. think tanks and wax eloquently about the leisurely, moral way of life down amongst the "country" folks in Oklahoma City. But I wonder if Ben wrote this little essay as he high-tailed it back home to Harvard? Moving on... Many coastal city dwellers like to look down on religious red staters. It's no surprise that Hollywood paints inhabitants of the Midwest and the South as backward, often inbred, straight out of "Deliverance." Anyone with a twang is labeled a hick by those on the coasts. Looking down on country dwellers gives lots of city folk a sense of superiority, secure in their knowledge that they are more tolerant, broad minded and intelligent than the yokels in the boonies. Some of the snobbery is true and some if it is undeserved, and some of it is perpetuated by disaffected transplants who have a bone to pick with their old hometowns. Here in the "country" there is a high value placed on conformity, and many people who flee this area for the places like L.A. and N.Y. do so to escape that atmosphere. You can't very well expect them to be gracious about a place that drove them away. That, my friends, is a luxury for people that have never lived here. After all, out in Los Angeles and Cambridge there are strong gun laws, high taxes and atheistic churches. What could be more enlightened? I dunno... horrible roads, crumbling schools, a growing meth problem and some of the highest divorce rates in the country? Well, after spending a few days in Oklahoma City, it's even clearer to me that the coastal elitists have everything upside down. Here are just a few of the lessons I learned from folks who live in the heartland: A few days!!! Just about par for the course in conservative thinking. They take a look around with their idealogical goggles on and see what they want to see. Nevermind that they never take the time to really think about what they are saying, as long as it conforms to their world view. Looking people in the eye isn't a crime. It's amazing, but when you've lived in big cities all your life, you are conditioned not to look strangers in the eye. You're taught to be afraid of strangers. If you walk down the aisle in a supermarket, and you happen to catch someone's eye, God forbid, you're supposed to look away to prevent awkwardness. If you don't, they might think you're rude, simple or perverted. Saying hello is never permitted, but if you do say hello, make sure to be subdued about it. After all, it's not like these people are your friends . The basic assumption underlying the city attitude is this: People are natural enemies. Strangers are scary. Don't interact. Remember that little Ben probably spent his few days in Oklahoma City wilderness surrounded by like minded people. But I'm still not sure where he spent his time, because its still taboo around here to talk to strangers without a good reason. My friend John, in one of his weirder phases once took it upon himself to start saying "hi" to random people that he met in passing. He got a mixed response but most of it was a confused suspicion, because here, as like most everywhere else, people that randomly approach you are usually trying to either sell you something or get you to join their "network". I'm not sure if this qualifies me as a big city dweller, but I did spend a couple of years in Dallas, a city larger and more diverse than Tulsa. And I will say that when you're surrounded by that many people it would take way too much time to interact with everyone around you. During the day to day crush of coming and going you become insular and shut out much of the hustle and bustle around you. But that doesn't mean that you become less friendly. In fact, I found it easier to make friends in Dallas than I do here. I'm not sure why but it felt like there were larger networks of people that you could interact with. Around here, especially in the more suburban areas everyone seems pretty isolated from everyone else. When you are forced into more close contact with people you're more likely to make friends with more people. At least that's what I discovered. In Oklahoma City, the opposite is true. You look people in the eye, you smile, you say hello. Maybe you even ask how they're doing. Looking away is considered rude and furtive. People aren't natural enemies, in the country view. In the city, such friendly effrontery is considered bold beyond belief. I can't talk for people in other cities, and I'm not about to draw wider generalizations based on my own ignorance, but I also suspect that cultural differences play a key role in explaining people's behavior as well. We're often taught what is expected in our culture. Around here, I know, people tend to be very polite to your face, saying "thank you" and "pardon me" but they can also be very judgemental in private. I know it can be off-putting to learn that a person that smiles, shakes your hand and says "How's it going?" every day also secretly hates your guts. But anyways.. more of Ben's two day insight into the Okie way of life. While "morality" remains a dirty word in the big coastal cities, it's part of the regular lexicon in the country. Yes, people sin in the country, but at least they recognize that they're sinning. In the city, by contrast, people create alternative religions (see secular liberalism) to excuse their misbehavior. Here in harsh backwaters of Oklahoma people use traditional religions to excuse their behavior. Much of the much vaunted "morality" that Ben finds so endearing is what drives many of our best people away. Morality is often used as a way of making yourself superior to other people around you and as a way to sheild yourself from much deserved criticism. Its not too hard to notice that many of the most publically moral people also turn out to be the worst private sinners. Of course no more convenient example of this kind of "morality" can be found than in Ben's own words. As I'm sure many of the people that he terms as "misbehaving" probably find nothing wrong with they way they are living. It is in fact, Ben, who is using his "morality" to judge others. So yes, if by morality you mean sanctimonious rock throwing, then yes, we do lots of that down here in the country. That is, until the people that we're throwing rocks at get tired of it and leave. But tell me more of our ways Ben... There's plenty of time. In the city, everyone's in a rush. We walk fast, we drive fast, we talk fast. We are efficient, tireless and rushed. No matter how hard we work, there never seems to be enough time. Every minute must be packed with activity. In the country, people seem to realize that life is made up of millions of minutes and that driving yourself crazy isn't worthwhile in the long run. Yes, working hard is vital -- you won't find harder workers anywhere in the United States than in places like Oklahoma City. But family and leisure can be just as important and renewing as work. Admittedly, people do drive really slowly in the passing lanes around here. As for his condescending crack about us folks being "hard workers".... all's I can say is "Thanks boss, can I have another one of those jobs so I can pay my bills!" And every state that a politician visits has the best football team too. People in the country aren't ignoramuses; they aren't hicks; they aren't boobs. Speaking with a drawl doesn't connote sloth; fearing God isn't a vice; morality and kindness aren't mutually exclusive. Slandering those in "flyover country" is a hobby of many in the city, but it takes that same "flyover country" mindset to keep America prosperous, vibrant and strong. ...and I might add, voting Republican, so that Ben's friends can all enjoy the good life up there in D.C. Ben and his Townhall buddies are in no rush to move down here. They are perfectly happy cheering us on as we vote to put them in power. But they want nothing to do with us. For all the talk about how great the Red States are, I don't see a rush of young republicans moving to Oklahoma. They still want to live in the big cities, party till the crack of dawn, and attend the best universities as they plan their road into politics, grabbing the reigns of the money-making machine that has become the republican party. Its all well and good to go on about our morality and the valor of the troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you don't see these guiding lights of the conservative movement rushing to join the rabble they so quickly praise. Sure there are people in the blue states that look down on people here in Oklahoma, when the fact is that people here aren't all that different. Places like Oklahoma City and Tulsa aren't "the country" as Ben seems to think. Not everyone here is a moralizing gasbag, we just seem to attact the most vocal ones. Just as its wrongheaded for coastal elites to look down on places like Oklahoma, so too it is condescending for people like Ben Shapiro to see the red states as his own little breeding ground for the footsoldiers of his movement while he stays a safe distance away, visiting to mingle with the common folk for a few days and coming away all "enlightened" about what it means to be an okie. I find Ben's attitude even more appalling than just straight ignorance. He wants people down here to fight and die in his wars, fuel his political aspirations and serve as an example for his idealogical vision, while not actually wanting to be one of us. Don't come back now, you hear? | 8.04.2005
TimesDispatch.com | Today's Boy Scouts, Tomorrow's soldiers?: "The Army Adventure Area, with its helicopters, big guns and combat videos, is a popular draw at the 2005 National Scout Jamboree, which concludes tomorrow. Yesterday, boys clambered over an Abrams tank while others checked out an Apache attack helicopter." | Emphasis Added: "You couldn’t really ask for a clearer contrast of character, of views, of values. At the very least, there seems ample reason to turn every sitting Republican officeholder in Ohio out into the street at the first opportunity simply on principles of good government. But that would mean going against the Tribe. It would mean supporting The Other Side, those no-good, America-hating, double-talking, high-taxing, draft-dodging, gay-marrying secular elites. And rest assured, no matter what they do, no matter what they say, those folks ain’t like us." There goes Rob again, talking out his ass. But here again, I happen to agree with him. When I look at the heart and soul of party politics I see hatred of the "other" as the one unifying theme. Nevermind that I can read through a right winger's screed on what I supposedly stand for and not see an ounce of truth in it. It doesn't matter. Whether the bad guys are real or not is irrelevant. Fictionalized liberals and commie leftists are just as good as real ones. Better even, because then you can always just assume that those normal people you meet on the street are just like you, and that those "evil people" are just around the corner. Or even better (and I direct this comment towards some of the yahoos on eschaton's comment board) that everyone who lives elsewhere is stupid and backward. But the sad fact of the matter is that "those people" are all around you. My feelings are that most of us share many of the same goals and values. We all want to be safe, we all want prosperity and justice, we want a fair society where we are all treated with respect. But we sometimes disagree on how to get there and sometimes, about who gets these things. In many ways partisan politics is a divide that keeps many of us from working together for a common goal. I'm a firm believer in political independence. Right now, I can't find much in the Republican party that I can agree with, though occassionally, I'll find myself agreeing with a Republican point of view. It doesn't happen often, but for instance, this morning I was listening to an interview with Rick Santorum. I could agree with his basic premise that corporate America's insatiable need to fuel profit drives some of the more crass products that we are exposed to. But I can't agree with his assertion that this is part of an anti-family liberal agenda. That idea seems ludicrous when I think about the good hearted liberals I know who are trying to make our culture better for families and kids. He comes across as a man who wants to make the world a better place but is constrained by his partisan need to blame everything on his political enemies. From that partisan-led assumption then comes a host of wrong conclusions. So its not radical feminists that are forcing women into the workplace to forsake their families, its the increasing need for two incomes and the desire by many women to have the independence that work provides for them. Despite what Santorum might think, its not strident support for a radical feminist agenda that leads most women to seek their own employment. So denouncing those feminists will not solve the problem. I understand this desire to blame our political enemies, and sometimes I fall victim to it myself. Its easier to blame someone for what's wrong than it is to engage them in debate. I often try (and you'll have to take my word for it) to give reasons why I disagree with someone, rather than just calling them names. Though sometimes, in my frustration I'll do the latter. But I hope that somewhere along the way I have tried to engage the issue before resorting to name calling. (I confess a weakness for creationists, who despite my best efforts, I find nearly intolerable in their wrongheadedness. I respect science too much to take them seriously.) I think most days I wish that there were no political parties, or at least more to choose from. That seems more American in spirit to me. Candidates would run on their own convictions and we would decide based on the issues, regardless of the capital letter next to their name. As it stands it really is a world in which "you're either with us or against us." That's sad. | Pandagon: "As I've repeated endlessly, the reason powerful conservatives are so happy to take away your right to privacy is because they know that the rich and the powerful always have that right. Money and power buys it. You can get a birth control pill, get an abortion, vote for who you want, associate with who you want, and no one will nose in your business because they fear offending you, since you can really fuck their life up with your power. They don't think privacy is a right. They think it is a privilege that belongs to their class and their class alone. Diamond necklaces, furs, a yacht, political influence and a door you can close are in the same category--luxury items that you have to pay through the nose for." For wider exposure. You ever notice that when there's a cop going the speed limit on the highway there are people that slow down and ride behind him and people that just speed right by him? There is a cloak of respectability that protects people with money. Our society is geared to cater to their wishes. Many companies are upfront about this, and people with money start to lose sight of just how much the world is accommodating them. Rich people know that they can get powerful people to listen them. After all, in this extremely fucked up system where money equals speech, politicians are keenly aware of the role that rich people play in getting them elected. So yeah, even if the fundies get their wish, and we outlaw abortion, the big money people will just find a way around it. We used to do it that way. It wasn't very civilized but it sure made being rich a lot more fun. In a world where all your rights are commodities to be purchased, not just speech, but all rights, will be contingent upon your ability to pay for them. And being working class will really suck. | 8.03.2005
Republican Beats Iraq Veteran in Ohio Vote - New York Times Wow.. how many veterans have the Republican's smeared? Let's see, there was McCain, Kerry, Cleland, and now Hackett. Maybe the headlines should have read, "Republicans Defeat Another Veteran". Support the troops -- as long as they do as they're told. Or as one poster at Free Republic put it: I have problems with soldiers speaking publicly against decisions that have been made...their job is to salute the flagpole and carry on. Yes, they are the kitchen help of the political world. Now, whether a candidate has military experience or not is not all that important to me. It does show that they have personal experience to speak about issues that they have witnessed firsthand. But that does not necessarily mean that they will be a good politician. Schimdt ran a rubber stamp campaign, "supporting the president" in his war on people we're scared of, that was enough to get her elected. Hell, in some places (OK for example) it would be enough to get a turnip elected. "Voters declared that they support our president and approve of his leadership," Ms. Schmidt, 53, told supporters gathered at a suburban Holiday Inn late Tuesday evening. "They want us to stay the course so the enemies of freedom cannot bring their terrorism to our shores again." Um, yeah, tax cuts for freedom! What I found particularly amusing was the position that Hackett should not be critical of the president. That calling the president out on his failed policies was somehow putting troops in danger. As if the bad decision making wwas not doing that already? So the only position a soldier coming home from war is allowed to have, is one of complete and unconditional support for the decisions of the civilian leadership? And to have an contrary opinion is putting fellow soldiers in danger? Makes it hard to run against a president in "wartime", especially if even civilian politicians who question the divine wisdom of "Our Dear Leader" are called traitors. So many rules... But hey, we know they're all bogus and will get tossed out the window the first time there's a Democratic president serving during "wartime" and a combat vet comes home and runs as a Republican, calling the president a lie and a traitor. Then he will be hailed as a hero and a patriot. But I guess that's just politics. | 8.02.2005
I've been buying up a few new cds these past couple of weeks. Jason Mraz - Mr. A-Z Aberfeldy - Young Forever Architecture in Helsinki - In Case We Die Okkervil River - Black Sheep Boy The Mraz cd is solid, not a real departure from where he was at with his last disc, Waiting For My Rocket to Come. As of right now the standouts are Clockwatching, Life is Wonderful, Plane, and Song for a Friend. I love singing along to Jason Mraz cds. Aberfeldy's Young Forever and AIH's In Case We Die are both delightfully light and fun to listen to when you're just out for a drive and need something to make you feel better. The real standout is the Okkervil River disc that I've raved about here on at least one other occassion. I can't seem to get these songs out of my head and more and more often I find I'll just click Artists-Okkervil River-All and go from there. Its a shame really that their cd's aren't as easy to acquire as some others. I had to order this disc special, but they have tons of their songs available for download on their website. Also, August 23 brings us the new John Vanderslice cd. I've posted the link up for the song Trance Manual before, but there it is again. Listen to this song loudly on a good set of speakers/headphones. Its sublime. Bonus Question: How many times can Rick Santorum be wrong? Answer: We're still waiting to see. | KR Washington Bureau | 08/01/2005 | Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools: "On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design 'so people can understand what the debate is about.' Its so sad that fairly smart people voted for this guy and spend way too much time trying to rationalize it in their own minds. But if it helps, repeat this phrase ten times each night before you go to bed: Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Bush is keeping us safe from the scary islamofascists. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant once you believe it to be so. Ah, the comfort of self-delusion. Because we all feel safer when we have the covers pulled up over our heads. | 8.01.2005
CBS News | Lightning Kills Second Scout | July 31, 2005?20:00:43 Wow, if I were the type to read "divine will" into such things, like say, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (post 9-11): "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." I might say that the tragedies that have befallen the Boy Scouts during this year's Jamboree -- four men electrocuted by a fallen tent pole, two scouts dying and seven injured by a lightning strike, and three hundred treated for heat exposure while waiting for President Bush to arrive for a visit -- were messages from God for something they did wrong, like say, discriminating against gay scouts. But I'm not, because that would be petty and hateful. Even when I was a practicing christian I would not have done so. There was a time, while I was still a Cub Scout (another startling revelation!!) that I thought it might be fun to go to a national Jamboree. But I never did, and eventually quit the scouts before becoming a Boy Scout. So, all I feel is sadness for the families of the people who died. Its always expecially poignent when a potentially joyeous experience comes to a tragic end. Losing somone in your life is always hard, and it never helps when people come along and read into that death like some sort of divine tea leaves. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
